Is the USA planning to attack Iran now?

Can't believe it can be mounted so quickly
Got this off another board....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




"According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan..........

globalresearch.ca...

[edit on 28-10-2004 by psteel]

Originally posted by psteel
Can't believe it can be mounted so quickly

What do you mean?

It didn't say invasion, it said attack. Which can be mounted in hours (minutes?)...

I really seriously doubt the article though.

A attack is coming. We've got Iran surrounded now on 3 sides. Bush isn't going to let them get any more nukes. Neither will Israel.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
A attack is coming. We've got Iran surrounded now on 3 sides. Bush isn't going to let them get any more nukes. Neither will Israel.

- That's about the level we've come to expect.

Not a single shred of evidence of even one 'nuke' and we get crap about "let them get any more nukes" spouted as if it were clear proven fact.

God save us from this kind of 'thinking'.

Just be aware that proof might come in the form of a mushroom cloud in the city you live.
You know, I can almost understand this need for "proof" that some people feel is needed. If Iran or Iraq or Syria were legitimate governments I could understand....but, their not. IMO!
These counrties have extremist governments that were NOT elected by their perpective peoples, there for, they are a dentrament not only to the U.S., but to the world.

Why need proof?
These so-called "leaders" are nothing short of terrorists, who want NOTHING but to oppress the masses, and acert their dominance over the people.
Why should the U.S. or the world even tolerate the presence of these governments? Why are they still around? And why haven't we done anything about them before now?

Lets face it, the neo-cons have had their master plan going for a while. Go have a look at the project for a new american century site, that will give you a taster.

Originally posted by HardCore American
Just be aware that proof might come in the form of a mushroom cloud in the city you live.
You know, I can almost understand this need for "proof" that some people feel is needed. If Iran or Iraq or Syria were legitimate governments I could understand....but, their not. IMO!
These counrties have extremist governments that were NOT elected by their perpective peoples, there for, they are a dentrament not only to the U.S., but to the world.

Why need proof?
These so-called "leaders" are nothing short of terrorists, who want NOTHING but to oppress the masses, and acert their dominance over the people.
Why should the U.S. or the world even tolerate the presence of these governments? Why are they still around? And why haven't we done anything about them before now?

So I assume when the war with Iran break up, you�ll be one on front line fighting correct?

Sminkey,

-" That's about the level we've come to expect.

Not a single shred of evidence of even one 'nuke' and we get crap about "let them get any more nukes" spouted as if it were clear proven fact.

God save us from this kind of 'thinking'."

I fully concur with this (your) assesment and add my voice to yours in prayer that better reasoning might prevail.

While I also agree that I personally have no irrefutable evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Are they (Iran) not fairly busy giving the overall impression that they are?

Moreover, I'll ask the question again; We know-with irrefutable evidence- that Iran is building, testing, and virtually at the fielding stage of IRBM's. These weapons have virtually no combat function-and certainly make no cost-benefit sense when equipped with a conventional warhead. Why is Iran building these missiles if not to equip them with chemical-biological-nuclear warheads? Are you not the least bit concerned that London may well be within their combat range?

I was/am quite upset at the prospect of Pakistan/India having nuclear weapons, (hell, I was/am quite upset at the prospect that the US/Russia or anyone having nuclear weapons!) but at least I can understand the reason was a balance between two powers scared the other would destroy it-be it Hindu-Islamic or Soviet-Western Cold Wars.

(and the old evil US created nuke's argument doesn'y hold water with me as I firmly believe that were it not for Hitler, that arms race would not have gained a foothold-at least not in the '40's)

Do you really believe the US to be so evil that it would attack/destroy Iran because of Colonial desires? Do you believe the US invaded Iraq because it served to advance the US desire to dominate the region? or for oil? Why, in your opinion, is the US foriegn policy so different for Egypt, SA, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait on so on v. Iraq, Iran, or Syria?

THINK SMINK!

Originally posted by persian

So I assume when the war with Iran break up, you�ll be one on front line fighting correct?

With any luck, yes

Originally posted by Sargon of Agade
I fully concur with this (your) assesment and add my voice to yours in prayer that better reasoning might prevail.

- Here's hoping.

Are they (Iran) not fairly busy giving the overall impression that they are?

- IMO no. I don't think they are giving any impression regarding nuclear weapons.

They are persuing nuclear power in a manner that has some people jumpy (and, let's be honest, some people falling over themselves to be jumpy) but that is nothing like the same as persuing actual weapons.

....and for all the 'yeah buts....' still no proof of anything that remotely justifies any kind of attack.

Moreover, I'll ask the question again; We know-with irrefutable evidence- that Iran is building, testing, and virtually at the fielding stage of IRBM's.

- To be frank, so what? Are they not entitled to defend their territory in the manner they deem fit?

It's not like they are not facing hostile forces or anything, is it?

These weapons have virtually no combat function-and certainly make no cost-benefit sense when equipped with a conventional warhead. Why is Iran building these missiles if not to equip them with chemical-biological-nuclear warheads?

- I am not party to their decisions any more than you are. I can't say why they want IRBM's. My guess is that it's because they're relatively cheap if crude and known to scare the bejesus out of the Israelis who threaten Iran with actual nuclear weapons.

Are you not the least bit concerned that London may well be within their combat range?

- No. Not at all.

They might have - one day - a few small low yeild nuclear devices they could (in the utterly unlikely event of them ever wanting to) in theory lob at London.

We would absolutely respond by turning most of Iran into glass.

Therefore they aren't going to.

Missile delivered nuclear weapons leave a calling card inviting certain response and our response, as everyone knows, is that if attacked by WMD in this manner it would be total, swift and utterly devastating......and have the entire backing of the UK populace.

So no, I have no fear that 'they might'. None whatsoever.

It's called detterence and it has worked with far far scarier 'enemies' than a handful of ME states like Iran, Syria or China or NK for that matter.

I was/am quite upset at the prospect of Pakistan/India having nuclear weapons, (hell, I was/am quite upset at the prospect that the US/Russia or anyone having nuclear weapons!) but at least I can understand the reason was a balance between two powers scared the other would destroy it-be it Hindu-Islamic or Soviet-Western Cold Wars.

- Proliferation is not somethiong I enjoy witnessing either.

(and the old evil US created nuke's argument doesn'y hold water with me as I firmly believe that were it not for Hitler, that arms race would not have gained a foothold-at least not in the '40's)

- Well there is the whole debate that we only invented them because we were convinced the nazis were on the verge of getting them. Having seen nazi Germany completely destroyed and not get them we had no reason to carry on with them and could have defeated Japan through embargo and containment....as we were well on the way to anyway. There would have been no nuke for Stalin to work from to get his and the matter still-born or even covered up as having run into insurmountable technical difficulties (as the Germans - kind of - did with their government)

But that is another debate.

Do you really believe the US to be so evil that it would attack/destroy Iran because of Colonial desires?

- I believe the current neo-con movement in the USA is as dangerous a threat to us all as any we have faced for a long long time. Those people are IMO genuinely insane, inspired by a mad-man (Strauss) and quite prepared to actually slaughter or cause the slaughter of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people to further their perverted 'vision' of dominance and what they think 'right' and 'great'.

I think they have hijacked the USA and are leading the American people towards the very things America has always stood against.

They are simply IMO the American western version of the fundamentalists at work abroad.

Do you believe the US invaded Iraq because it served to advance the US desire to dominate the region? or for oil?

- Yes. Particularly as they have written down and described their little 'project' and their aims. All done long before 9/11 by the way. Have you read the PANAC stuff?

(BTW why do these types always insist on putting their sad little small-minded dreams of 'world domination' into print? Is it considered part of the requirement to be a 'proper' fascist or something?)

Why, in your opinion, is the US foriegn policy so different for Egypt, SA, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait on so on v. Iraq, Iran, or Syria?

- Come come S of A, one always treats ones' client states very differently to those that tell you to go and take a running jump.

It's obvious and if anyone should know the UK should what with our not so old experience of long-reach influence and empire. (Not that anyone calls it empire anymore, the term is outdated and that mode of control is now unnecessary.)

THINK SMINK!

- Don't worry, (whether it's obvious or not) I'm at that all the time.



[edit on 28-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Hard Core America,

Itchin for a fight? Do you have some beef towards Persians or something?

Im sure the US is planning to attack Iran, Syria, N. Korea, Russia, Canada and every other nation and piece of land throughout the world. This does not mean it will follow through. If any event breaks out in the world, the military has probably already 'Planned' a situational attack. I hope you get my point.

I heard about this story a couple of weeks ago, and nothing came out of it. Wayne Madsen served in the NSA during the Reagen Administration, and has a new book coming out "Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops, and Brass Plates."
His other one was "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II."
Considering the Nature of the Iraq war, Im sure some other nations would have chimed in on this by now.

You people need to use your heads! This is exactly why we support Isreal, so they can do this type of dirty work for us.

And BTW - for all f you people thinking it is just the US thinking about attacking Iran, have a look into who signed the last legislation on the subject in the UN.

There are a few names that might suprise you including FRANCE and GERMANY but suprisingly, the US is missing.

Wouldn't that make those countries the war mongers?

I mean, at least there is concrete evidance that those nations are willing to go to war. Everything on the US is hear-say and speculation....

Originally posted by American Mad Man
BTW - for all f you people thinking it is just the US thinking about attacking Iran, have a look into who signed the last legislation on the subject in the UN.

There are a few names that might suprise you including FRANCE and GERMANY but suprisingly, the US is missing.

Wouldn't that make those countries the war mongers?

- AMM France and Germany, along with Russia and the UK have been attempting to get Iranian co-operation on the matter of their nuclear facilities, capabilities and actual activities through the UN & IAEA.

The resolutions passed are absolutley not resolutions about going to war.

Where are you getting that from?

Originally posted by HardCore American

Originally posted by persian

So I assume when the war with Iran break up, you�ll be one on front line fighting correct?

With any luck, yes

You sound like young man back in the days of the "hitlerjugend". Passionate for fighting in the front line, dying for a lunatic mind!

Nuke, nuke, nuke. Some of you guys talk about killing thousands of people like it's empyting the windows recycle bin. I wonder what you would think about such opinions if born in Iran or another "evil" country.
But lucky you! Savely born in a western country, shouting tough words to compensate a lack of humanity.

These counrties have extremist governments that were NOT elected by their perpective peoples, there for, they are a dentrament not only to the U.S., but to the world.

I think you will find, apart from the ideology of the government, the actual, legislative and Presidential positions within Iran are elected by popular vote.

Goes to show that too much TV is a bad a thing! Perhaps if our American "friends" actually looked up anything and researched for themselves, they may have a more balanced and less extremist, knee jerk view to World affairs.

Sorry peacenicks Iran does have nukes but lacks delivery capability at the moment outside the middle east. Bringing online a heavy water facility means they are looking toward thermonuclear devices. You know H-bombs. Thus far only puny A-bombs are in the hands of these radicals. The people of Iran are cool. It's the clerics that I have a problem with. Telling the beloved UN to "stuff-it" should tell you something.

...Are leaders destined to hold their own populace hostage to rogue nations, like Iran. Sminkey, didn't you guys learn anything from WWI and WWII??? You sat back with this same "PROOF" argument in WWII while Hitler prepared himself to run amok over Europe, which he did... handily I should add. I'm not patting my country on back, merely pointing out a fact, that without the USA coming to your aid, Europe would look very different today... like almost everyone would be blonde with blue eyes... get the point?

The problem with your argument is by the time we have the "PROOF" that you so dearly need to make tough calls, we'll all already be hostages to Iran's theocratic government... got it? Or worse yet, given Iran's continued support of terrorism, the proof might arrive in the form of a 200+ Kiloton explosion in the heart of London... got it now?

Let's deal with reality here... Iran has kicked out the UN IAEA Inspectors... hmmm, why would that be... I mean, isn't their Uranium Enrichment Programme a peaceful one? They have buried under-ground all of their nuclear enrichment facilities... why is that? That are testing IRBMs and looking into acquiring ICBM technology... Now, why would that be? Given that IRBM and ICBM missiles are a.) far too expensive to launch given a conventional warhead b.) far too slow to elude radar and risk being shot down and c.) Much too costly to fire, store and maintain given the "Bang for the buck". In short IRBM and ICBM missiles are for nuclear warheads! Now come on, let's face reality here! If it walks like a duck, queacks like a duck... THEN IT'S A FRIKKIN' DUCK!

Originally posted by stumason

These counrties have extremist governments that were NOT elected by their perpective peoples, there for, they are a dentrament not only to the U.S., but to the world.

I think you will find, apart from the ideology of the government, the actual, legislative and Presidential positions within Iran are elected by popular vote.

Goes to show that too much TV is a bad a thing! Perhaps if our American "friends" actually looked up anything and researched for themselves, they may have a more balanced and less extremist, knee jerk view to World affairs.

- Yeah and not a trace of irony at an American talking about legitimately elected leaders either eh?

Iran Nukes

Sorry peacenicks Iran does have nukes but lacks delivery capability at the moment outside the middle east. Bringing online a heavy water facility means they are looking toward thermonuclear devices. You know H-bombs. Thus far only puny A-bombs are in the hands of these radicals. The people of Iran are cool. It's the clerics that I have a problem with. Telling the beloved UN to "stuff-it" should tell you something

When exactly has Iran told the Un to "stuff" it? They have complied the whole way, yet the US is still giving them a hard time. They have the right to develop nuclear energy under the terms of the NPT, and have fufilled their obligations to said treaty. The reason the EU wants MORE co-operation, is to try and avoid a repeat of some BS pre-emptive attack by Israel or the US that will pull the whole region into War